Orissa

Cuttak

CC/208/2021

Niranjan Adhikari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Trupti Automotives - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.208/2021

Mr. Niranjan Adhikari,

S/O:Bubhuti Bhusan Adhikari,

At:Rathagada Sahi,Po.O:Urali,

P.S:Cuttack Sadar,Cuttack                                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Manager, (Dealer).

       Trupti Automotives,

       H.O:NH-5,Manguli Cuttack-754025.

 

2.       The Managing Director,

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Corporate Claims Depaartment Vishranthi

Melaram TGower,No.2/319.Rajiv Gandhi Salai(omr)

Karapakkam,Chennai-600097.

 

3.      The C.E.O,

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Regd. Office-21,Patulles Rd,Chennai-600002.

 

4.     The Branch Manager,

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor,Radhika Complex,near over bridge,

Reliance Fresh,BBSR,Odisha-751006.

 

5.    The Regional Transport Office,Cuttack,

Chandini Chowk,Cuttack,Odisha-753002.... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    15.12.2021

Date of Order:   29.09.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 :                Mr. K.K.Chandra,Adv. & Associates.

For the Other O.Ps.                          None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President             

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had parked his Tata ACE vehicle of Iris Cream colour bearing Regd. No.OD-05-X-8218 with chassis noMAT445553GKJ47365 &  engine no.275IDI07JTYSA4050  near Lane-3 of Kharvela Estate at about 11.40 P.M for the purpose of loading.  On 25.9.18 the complainant found his vehicle to be missing and could not locate the same inspite of searching it.  He had tried to lodge FIR at Pahala Police Station on 3.10.18 but the same when refused to be accepted, the complainant had approached the A.C.P in his Redressal Forum and accordingly his FIR was registered before the IIC,Balianta P.S.  Final report was submitted by the police on 30.10.19.  The complainant had insured his Tata ACE vehicle with Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. vide his policy no.VGC048549500100.  He had purchased his Tata ACE vehicle by getting a finance and thereby had obtained a loan of Rs.3,59,49,700/- on 14.12.16 which was to be repaid by him in 47 number of instalments.  Out of such instalments, the complainant had paid 23 number of instalments amounting to Rs.2,33,781/- and thereby a sum of Rs.2,43,78,600/- was pending to be repaid by him.  The complainant had sent several mails to the Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. for settlement of his claim but all those were in vain. The complainant being a physically challenged person had suffered a lot because of his loss of income.  Thus, he has filed case before this Commission with a prayer seeking direction against the O.Ps for paying him an amount of Rs.4,20,537/- towards the cost of the vehicle, a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of his litigation and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards his mental agony.

            He has filed copy of a voucher showing the purchase of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,20,537/-  in his favour.  He has also filed copies of other connecting documents in order to establish his case.

2.         The O.Ps in this case having not contested were set exparte vide order dt.17.6.22.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Points no.i & ii.

            Points no.i & ii are clubbed up together and taken up for consideration here in this case.

            While going through the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition, it is noticed that though the complainant has mentioned about parking of his Tata ACE vehicle at Lane-3 of Kharavela Estate he has not stated therein as to on which date he had parked his vehicle there.  On 25.9.18 he could not know about the missing of his Tata ACE vehicle by going to the spot and could assume thereby that some unknown person has stolen it.  He had gone to the Pahala P.S in order to lodge his FIR on 3.10.18.  He has not mentioned as to on which date he had made his claim before the insurance authorities.  It is well settled principle of law that if the FIR is to be lodged regarding any incident, it is to be done as quickly as possible excepting the reasonable delay if any.  In case of insurance claim, the matter is to be reported to the insurance authorities immediately after the occurrence without delay.  Here in this case, the complainant had failed to mention as to on which date he had parked his vehicle at the place of incident and even though he has stated that he could know that some unknown person had stolen his vehicle by going to the spot on 25.9.18.  He had gone to the OIC Pahala P.S for lodging his FIR on 3.10.18.  He has not explained as to under what circumstances he could not proceed to the Pahala P.S earlier even though he could know about the theft of his vehicle on 25.9.18.  This delay in lodging the FIR that which was not accepted according to him; is not atall explained by the complainant.  The complainant has also not mentioned as to when had he informed to the O.Ps/Insurers as regards to the missing/theft of his vehicle.  He has not also filed any document in order to apprise, this Commission that as to when had he made the claim and as to why his claim could not be attended to.  From the copies of the documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that there is no document so as to know as to why the claim of the complainant was repudiated.  Thus, it appears that the complainant has not approached before this Commission with clean hands and has also failed to prove the deficiency in service if any by the O.Ps.  When the same is not proved properly, here in this case, this Commission cannot hold that the case of the complainant is maintainable.  These two points are accordingly answered.

Point no.iii.

            From the above discussions, it can be concluded that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs. Hence it is so ordered;

                                                             ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member